Hovind Responds to His Critics

When I first began developing this web site, I planned to host an unedited reply from Kent Hovind regarding the issues raised on this site.  At least twice I have sent an invitational email to Kent Hovind (March 2001 and July 2001).  Neither Kent Hovind or any of his staff have accepted the offer of a written reply.

The failure of Hovind to respond has left me with the necessity to improvise.  There is something very odd which I have noticed about Kent Hovind, he appears to have a fear of writing.  As evidence, notice how many times in the following he refuses written discussion or debate but loves the telephone or spoken debates.  Very odd.

UPDATE:  Hovind dedicated a series of his internet broadcasts to 'answering the critics' including this web site.  See here for further details.

How would you answer critics who have written bad things about you?

Amid the hundreds of letters and e-mails we receive each week here at CSE, we occasionally receive one from an atheist, skeptic, critic, scoffer, or even an idiot or two.  Several have posted web sites about me.  I keep so busy with my hectic travel schedule that I normally do not take time to respond to them in writing more than once.  There are so many people who want to hear the truths about creation that it is a waste of time to get distracted answering the scoffers.  They will ask hundreds of questions or make hundreds of accusations.  I am convinced that most of them don't really want an answer anyway, they want to tie up all my time and prevent the gospel from getting out.  If I took the time to answer them all they would only ask a hundred more.  We do offer a great book called Creation Scientists Answer their Critics by Dr. Duane Gish that answers many commonly asked questions.  I have also produced an audio tape with answers to some of the scoffers' questions and objections. The tape is $3 and can be returned for a full refund.  We will add to the tape as time permits.  I have a standing offer to face any number of evolutionists at a time in front of their own university, and Dr. Walt Brown has a standing offer to engage qualified scientists in an email debate.

I will be the first to say that I have learned much from my critics and have changed things in my seminars over the years because of their legitimate gripes, corrections and suggestions. "Iron sharpeneth iron." (Prov. 27:17) These critics can be a man's best friend, if they don't distract you from the main job.  God knows that I want to be accurate and would never purposely tell a lie to promote my point.  I may not always be right, but if I am saying it in my seminar then I don't know it to be false.

LIE!  Without counting all the straw man arguments and verifiable false statements, there is still enough material to show Hovind is a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.   Perhaps Hovind doesn't consciously know he is lying, which raises some interesting issues.

I work hard and research a lot to try to be right.  I am certainly willing to be corrected by friend or foe.  Even if it is proven that I am teaching something that is not correct, don't be fooled into thinking that one incorrect statement means everything else I say is wrong.  Any third grader should know that.

Evolutionists often try to divert attention from the legitimate points I bring up about their religion.  They know their "theory" won't stand close scrutiny so they try to focus people's attention on something else.  They will point out a five second mistake in my 15 hour seminar and assume the entire thing is false.  The problems the creationists cannot explain or the unintentional errors in their books or speeches are very minor compared to the mountainous problems the evolutionist is overlooking or ignoring in his own religion.  I ask quite a few questions in my seminar notebook and bring up points in my seminar that they seem to conveniently avoid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why they do this.

Red herring The accuracy of the an opponents position is irrelevant to the criticisms of Hovind's claims.

Speaking of my own critique, this web site contains almost two megabytes of text critiquing Hovind's claims.  I found more than just "a five second mistake".

I confess that I have very little patience with the scoffers after a few exchanges.  Maybe it is the Elijah personality in me that wants to mock them as in I Kings 18:27.  I am working on trying to be more Christ-like in my dealings with them.  I always offer to talk with any skeptic by phone or to debate them publicly but not in a long drawn out e-mail exchange. They nearly always refuse.

LIE! Kent Hovind Refuses to Debate!!

Many remain anonymous for some strange reason.  I see no reason for this cowardice except maybe Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion."

Contradiction Hovind defends the anonymous identities of the judging panel of his "$250,000 Challenge" with the following logic; "[t]he merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are".

They do not need to fear me.  I will not hurt them.  I feel sorry for those whom the Devil has deceived into believing his lies.  I will gladly discuss any topic or question with anyone, friend or foe.  If I am wrong, I will admit it and change whatever I need to change to make it right. I don't claim to be perfect, and never have, but I serve a God who is and love His Bible, which is perfect.

It is both humorous and sad to see the evolutionists strain so hard at the gnats in the creation theory and then turn around and swallow the camel of evolution.  I have read carefully the criticisms of each of these scoffers.  Rest assured that my offer to publicly debate any evolutionist (even two or three at a time against just me if that will help) is always open.  I do the debates not so much to convert the evolutionist (though I would like to) but because it helps so many in the audience.  Most people who have attended or watched my seminar or who have common sense will be able to see through the silly questions the skeptics ask or the ridiculous non-answers they give to my questions.  However, if you read the so-called How Good are those Young Earth Arguments [URL added] by Matson or 300 Creationist Lies [URL added] by the cowardly anonymous "Budikka" ......

Contradiction Once again the double standard of anonymity is displayed.  Plus, "Budikka" has informed Hovind of his real world identity.  You can read Ian Wood's version of events.

...... or any other of my critics on the web, and something they say raises a question in your mind, please give me a call.  I can defend my position or I will be glad to change.  It is a great American tradition that the accused gets to face his accuser.  Anonymous critics get little or none of my attention.  I travel a lot but we have a very capable staff working at CSE who will answer your questions or leave a message for me with several good times to call you back.

I offered the opportunity to Hovind of a written response of unlimited length at his (or his staff's) own leisure to be hosted unedited on this site.  Hovind (and his staff) refused.

I went through Dave Matson's book [URL added] and circled every time he used the words "might have," "could have," "scientists believe," etc.  His great faith in evolution shows through clearly as his religion, not science.  It surprised me how many non-answers they give to the points I raised in my seminar.  For example, when answering the problem about the short period comets, Matson said they are being replenished from the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt!   No one has ever seen this happen, of course, but he believes it to be so.  That is an answer based not on science but faith, and he should admit it.  The entire answer is filled with typical evolutionist hallucinations.  He is always using words like "computer simulations," and "theoretical calculations," "would likely," "statistical calculations," "some astronomers estimate," etc.  His intention is to show it "could have" happened. Well, I "could have been" President of General Motors, but I'm not!   He needs to read, Raymond Littleton [sic], "The Non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell," Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31 pp. 385-401.  There is no Oort cloud.

False Short period comets do not originate from the Oort Cloud.

Contradiction  Hovind has often claimed that "evolution" is taught religiously, yet here he is complaining that Matson is not being dogmatic.

Contradiction Actually it is more of an example of hypocrisy.  The follow is an extract from one of Hovind's own web pages

It is reasonable to assume ... No one knows for sure  ..... There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds ..... possibly even a food distribution system..... Some have suggested .....  I do not know exactly how Noah .....

 

 

Quote mining I suspect Hovind copied this citation from Walt Brown without having read the article.  Note the date of the article which Hovind omitted.  "Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,  Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, pp. 385-401" [emphasis added]  Did this study overturn the concept of the Oort Cloud?  If it did then it's been kept secret for more than a quarter of a century.

Contradiction  Where did the "comet" for the Hovind Theory come from?

See here for more details of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.

He concludes his non-answer to the comet question by trying to put the burden on the creationist!  He says, "The creationist must prove that there are no reasonable sources for replenishing comets" (p.13).  And I say, "No, Dave, if you expect all taxpayers to fund your religion in the public school system, parks, museums, etc., the burden of proof is on you!  You may spend your money any way you want.  You are welcome to believe anything you want and you may teach your children anything you want them to believe; but before you spend my money to teach my children and grandchildren something I don't want them to believe, the burden of proof is on you!"  Shifting the burden of proof is a common tactic to keep an enemy busy.  If I said watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin, I have shifted the burden on proof on you.  Prove me wrong!   That is what most scoffers try to do with their criticisms of creationists.  Don't be fooled!

You can read the 'offending' paragraph and draw your own conclusions.  Hovind is so proud of this paragraph that he incorporated it into his sermons [1] but ignored the rest of Matson's work.

[1]  http://www.cbbc.net/RS/ 6 Jan 2002 Session #2 @ 20:34

After reading through one scoffer's article called "300 lies of creation scientists" [sic]  [URL added] it was hard not to laugh.  They sure are getting desperate these days.  I told him I don't deal with anonymous cowards, but, if he would give me his real name and number, I would be glad to show him when his logic is wrong.  He has refused and now is upset because I won't correspond with him any more.

You can read Ian Wood's version of events here.

I don't waste a lot of time on scoffers because there are so many sincere people who want and need the truth that it is unfair to divert much energy to those who do not want to hear.  During the war for states’ rights, President Lincoln was getting lots of critical letters.  One of his aids asked him if he intended to answer them.  Lincoln replied that if he answered all his critics that would absorb all his time and he had a war to win.  Nehemiah did the same thing when his enemies wanted him to stop the work and come down to talk about the wall he was building.  His answer was classic.  Nehemiah 6:3-4 "And I sent messengers unto them (his critics), saying, I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?  Yet they sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered them after the same manner."

Nearly every day a skeptic or scoffer will try to engage me in a letter writing battle via e-mail or standard mail over the creation subject.  I have a standing offer of $250,000 for proof for evolution and I stand ready to debate any 2 or 3 evolutionists at a time in a public setting, but I won't waste the time to slowly hunt and peck out endless answers when they don't really want one.  That would be casting my pearls before swine.  See Matthew 7:6.  If they are so sure they are right, they should be delighted with the opportunity to debate me publicly.  I will even draw the crowd for them!

Red herring Let's, for argument sake, say that mainstream science is completely wrong.  How does this fix a single one of the verifiable errors, contradictions, false dichotomies, straw man arguments or outright lies of Kent Hovind's seminars?

Atheists seem to have nothing else to do.  They know they can't get a crowd together for an atheist's meeting, so they ride on the coattails of the creationists.  For example, I recently was invited by the free-thought club on the Ohio State University campus to debate the editor of the American Atheist Magazine.  They told me they normally had about 30 people come to their meetings (in a university of 58,000) but they had nearly 90 come when this man spoke the month before.  They were proud to tell me about this great attendance!  The night of the debate there were hundreds there (several people said there were over 700) to hear the debate.  I speak to crowds of over 1000 many weeks out of the year.  The atheists of course have a ‘smarter than thou’ attitude about it all.  They say their crowds are small because there are not very many smart people (meaning themselves of course) in the world.  What an ego!

Red herring What on Earth does any of that have to do with the errors in Hovind's sermons?

Straw man  I smell the implication of "evolution theory equals atheism" in the breeze.

Contradiction  How does Hovind's comment about ego stand regarding his own words?

" .....  I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years, I used to debate on this topic all the time." source

 

 

If these critics would devote even 5% of their error-detecting attention to the evolution theory like they do to the creation theory, they would see the lies, wild exaggerations and distortions used to support the silly idea that we all came from a rock over the last 4.6 billion years!  Converted evolutionists make great creationists.  Christians and creationists need to work to be accurate, of course, at the same time we need to realize the evolutionists are not the enemy, Satan is the enemy.  It may be hard at times, but we need to love the sinner while we hate the sin.  God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth.

Contradiction  Did Hovind just admit there are errors within the "truth" of Creation Science?

Several web sites and debate opponents have accused me of all sorts of things that are not true.  For example: one professor I debated recently said I had posted on my web site that dinosaur fossils were found in the act of eating a human [URL added].   He laughed saying I had been taken in by an April fool's joke.  The truth is; someone emailed me about the site.  That night during my seminar I mentioned that I had just heard of this new find but had not had time to look at it yet nor to confirm the accuracy of the story.  At no time was it on my web site and when I researched the subject the next day and found it to not be true I never mentioned it again.  However, there are still several web sites about me that accuse me of believing and teaching that.

I'm not sure admitting you knowingly told a layman audience an unsubstantiated extraordinary claim is something to be proud of.  At least we have a confession that Hovind fell for an April Fools joke - and a prank that only a Young Earth Creationist could ever fall for.  It appears Hovind was happy to latch onto any claim regardless of rationality or confirmation.

This same professor accused me of preaching that the new world order was coming on May 5, 2000 and that the earth's [sic] population would be reduced to ½ billion by then.  The truth is; I showed a book by a new age [sic] author called "5-5-2000" and said "Many in the "New Age" movement say their "spirit guides" have told them they must reduce the population of the world to ½ billion by May 5, 2000 when we enter the "Age of Aquarius" so man can evolve in the spiritual area. May 5, 1818 was Karl Marx's birthday. Some people in the new age movement would like to have the earth's [sic] population reduced to ½ billion by this date so we can enter what they call "The Age of Aquarius". I never predicted anything would happen.

I originally classed this claim as a lie but after a vigorous debate I have had to agree with Hovind that he did not explicitly claim anything would happen.  I still think he intended to imply something would happen.  As such we have to conclude this is just Hovind being his usual self. 

I won't take the time or energy to answer the scoffers but if you come across any points that particularly bother you, give me a call and I will be glad to help you see the flaws in their logic.  I travel a lot, but I try to be in the office most Thursdays and Fridays from 8-4:30 CST.  Don't hesitate to call me at (850) 479-3466.